No More Learning

Comparatists of Happiness 145
should be maintained, otherwise the system would fall apart com- pletely, and we don’t want that.
SLOTERDIJK: The argument has a grain of truth in it. We shouldn’t forget that modern society, the system as a whole, has gone through a change of emphasis from a paternalist state that was capable of being strict to a maternalist state doomed to pam- pering. This touches on the great socio-psychological adventure of the twentieth century: the maternalization of the state system. It is embodied in the system of solidarity funds that, as we know, can only run on the basis of wage labour plus compulsory levy. This reveals the postmodern social nexus: everybody is involved in pampering everybody. It will obviously lead to paradoxes in the second or third generation at the latest. This is why there is pres- ently a mood of public withdrawal of solidarity. We realize that the people now paying contributions can’t be supported any longer by those coming up behind. We are realizing that the social contract always had elements of a chain-letter problem – which is despised and prohibited in other areas of life, of course. This insurance chain letter runs through the generations; the later we take our place in the recipients’ line the more certain we are to be losers. That’s one reason why we won’t be able to abandon the principle of wage labour for a long time to come. The relationship between wage labour and social security contributions will remain the nerve of social linkage for the foreseeable future. This would apply even if we adopted the Swiss system of a total levy of social security contributions in which freelance professions, civil servants, employers and workers were all treated the same way and everybody paid for each other and for everything. All the same, it is an interesting alternative to the models so far. Firstly, it would lead to a strong reduction in contri- butions at the same time as an increase in insurance fund holdings. It’s an inspiring model, but I really don’t know if it is applicable to Germany and how it can be calculated in the long term.
PANTEL: What does pampering by the ‘nanny state’, the ‘other mother’ [Allomutter], as you call it, do to individuals? How does it change them? Does it raise them to be juvenile and to lack independence?
SLOTERDIJK: That description goes too far. Looking at today’s young people, we can see immediately that they are not really dependent; they are demanding. And they take offence exception- ally easily. They also give up very easily, with a sour attitude that there’s enough for all the other wretches, but they are the ones who get too little. This outlook produces the German weather, the coun- try’s regular grey. All the same, it’s possible to carry on dreaming the dream of the land flowing with milk and honey. I note that the
146 Comparatists of Happiness
fairy-tale motif of the modern age that we have already mentioned, the popular dream of income without performance, has reached the stock exchange now. The famous ‘securities’ express nothing but the idea that people can easily get an income with venture capital defined as a risk premium. It’s a field day for Fortunatus and idlers. However, this idea of risk is absent from the typical get-rich fairy tales of the modern age. The poor child in the ‘Star Money’ story by the Brothers Grimm is suddenly rewarded for being a good lad – all he has to do is to stand on the spot where gold rains down and lift up his shirt. Fortunatus, the honest German, is rewarded for getting lost in the right woods at the right moment to meet the virgin of luck, who tells him, ‘I offer you six choices and you are free to choose one. Do you want wisdom, strength, righteousness, moderation – the classical virtues – or would you prefer health or riches? ’ Fortunatus, whose story was first written down in the Volksbuch from 1509 and has since been retold countless times, is important for the history of ideas because he was the first, when offered these options, to declare: ‘Leave me in peace with your noble virtues, I want riches! ’ He was granted his wish in the form of a magic purse that, when he opened it, contained forty gold pieces in the currency of whichever country he was in. It was a perfect anticipation of the euro, in fact. It is worth noting that the owner of the purse didn’t have to ask how the money got there. Fortunatus, the economic good-for-nothing, enjoyed the privilege of not having to ask any questions. He didn’t have to be interested in the origin of wealth. He didn’t have to refer to produc- tion or the tax system. He opened the magic purse and found what he was looking for. The fantasy of lasting abundance is situated directly at the level of fairy-tale themes and the dynamics of wishes, and declared valid – and that’s it. In short, it economizes on think- ing about production. This savings programme for thinking creates a type of person that doesn’t have to deal with declining production any longer.
This is one reason, by the way, why the Marxist producer-person has a greater dimension of complexity than today’s consumer. Today’s affluent people tend to be located at the consumer end and don’t know the answer to the question of whether they earn what they earn. They don’t know how wealth is really created and they don’t want to know any more either, because, as the last humans, they are equally indifferent to production and reproduction. It is true that people today know more about products – Marx would probably collapse if he were given a menu in a hotel that required him to choose between the ten kinds of dressing that come with salad nowadays. But don’t worry; he would learn quickly, just as today’s consumers learn to cope with the abundant options. Those
Comparatists of Happiness 147
well versed in shopping lore today can distinguish between Prada and not-Prada at a glance. That doesn’t alter the fact that they are one dimension worse off than people who have learned how to ask the question in the classical tradition of political economy: where does value come from? That question has vanished from collective consciousness – the magicians have outstripped the producers.
PANTEL: The ‘demanding young people’ you just mentioned want – rightly – to share in the ‘wealth’. But many people, or the majority, don’t want wealth handed to them as a gift; they’re quite prepared to work for it. Isn’t it a tragedy for young people that they lack opportunities?
SLOTERDIJK: Which opportunities are lacking? Well, mostly those that guarantee security from the start. Young people have always had the freedom to define themselves as entrepreneurs. But we shouldn’t forget that freedom is an attribute inherent to the individual! It can’t be detached from the individual, and it can’t be generalized in the abstract. And if for every person who makes use of creative freedom there are ninety-nine who don’t, that doesn’t contradict the promise of freedom.
PANTEL: The French Christian philosopher Simone Weil – you cite her in your work – believed that accepting the law that it is essential to work to stay alive is the most perfect act of obedience a person can perform, comparable only to acceptance of death. How is it possible that people sometimes give more thought to buying a DVD player than choosing a profession?
SLOTERDIJK: I cited that statement because it is exagger- ated and outdated. It seems to me Simone Weil was postulating a metaphysics of the proletariat as if the heavy burden of life and the alienated grind were eternal constants. But this fails to under- stand the major event of the twentieth century, the victory over the workload. The labour-saving forces of modern technology have fun- damentally changed the conditio humana. We are no longer beasts of burden; the era of heavy work is over, and so is the era of servitude. Simone Weil didn’t consider relief from the load. Instead, she anachronistically composed a Christian metaphysics of the worker and misguidedly sanctified the ‘voluntary daily death of factory work’ as if Christ were standing at the workbench until the end of the world. These ideas are certainly noble, but they are confused and, above all, out of date. Automation, relief from the workload, social security – she didn’t consider any of that. Nowadays we have workers who tend to be overweight and are under-challenged. They have a large amount of surplus leisure time and ponder how to conceal their unproductiveness. Astonishingly big unfilled gaps are still to be found at the core of so-called productive labour. Consider
148 Comparatists of Happiness
how the working day was constructed in real existing socialism: in the morning people had to be at work on time, and after that they did whatever they wanted to. Even in the Western working world there are huge segments in which the situation is similar, not just in the public service sector. In general, we can say that work is always tied to a factor of pretending to work, including the pretence of pro- ductivity, utility and indispensability. Such pretences, incidentally, are part of every product our economic system brings to the market, because every product is aimed at persuading buyers to take it, although it is clear that it is the sellers who always get the better deal – precisely because of the successful illusion of utility. Given this, the young people who think seriously when buying a digital camera or a DVD player are the men and women of the moment. They are showing they have learned one thing: as customers they don’t want to be taken for idiots, at least not for total idiots. In the first place, a product is always a proposal for exploitation that the producer makes to the customers: ‘Buy me! I’m using you a little, it’s true, but just between us, I’m always getting the better deal. ’ That’s what the products would say if they could be honest. In this context, let me quote Walter Benjamin, who imagined products as a whole talking the language of whores. When a potential customer goes past, the product whispers to him: ‘Come on, little fellow, I’ll give you a blow job! ’ – at which the poor customer grabs the offer. The customer probably realizes that we’ll have to wait until the coming of the Messiah to escape from the system of unequal exchange.
PANTEL: You have written that the Biedermeier period4 was the last time that the defenders of past events fell for the illusion that one could safely escape from the disintegrating force of progress. If we consider globalization as progress, do you think we are living in a postmodern Biedermeier era?
SLOTERDIJK: Definitely. Seen from a socio-psychological angle, globalization, wherever it has been successful, or rather, where it can look back on a long accumulation of means of comfort, has given rise to a paradoxical human type: the dissatisfied satisfied person. And that is precisely the Biedermeier person, and eo ipso the person of the present in the metropolises of comfortable life. Nietzsche once criticized the writer and former theologian David Friedrich Strauss as a regular satisfait. The term is useful because
4 The Biedermeier era in Germany covers the years between the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the European revolutions of 1848, a period of middle-class expansion associated with specific styles of interior decor, art and literature.
Comparatists of Happiness 149
today’s Germans are essentially satisfaits, but actually dissatisfied satisfaits. They are dissatisfied with their own satisfaction because they sense that they live below the standards of their own lives to some extent. Existentially they are under-challenged and over- challenged at the same time. That is the socio-psychological result of the successful establishment of the comfort system in the Western or Westernized world. Incidentally, we can only get closer to the exact meaning of the term ‘globalization’ in this context: in princi- ple it describes exclusively the great sphere of comfort in which the Western welfare states and the nouveau riche from the young capi- talist countries live. Everybody knows that this sphere is surrounded by a desolate outer zone, planetary suburbia.
Using the term ‘globalization’ as if it were an inclusive global system or even a global society can cause dreadful confusion. I suggest restricting the term ‘globalization’ to the history of produc- tion of the great comfort system to which probably not more than a quarter of humankind belongs. Beside it is a huge periphery whose inhabitants have no chance of ever getting in, and a semi-periphery consisting of people within reach of entry to the comfort system, perhaps not in the present generation but in the next one or the one after. Interestingly, these are the zones with the highest dynamic of ambition. We can see this at the moment with the new EU member states: typically for semi-peripheral countries, they display genuine dynamics of ambition comparable to those that today’s ‘satisfait Europeans’ experienced from the 1950s on, in the happy days of the optimal relationship between appetite and the possibilities of satisfying it. People had great ambition, they knew they only had to work hard for a while and then they could start placing their orders. Those were golden times; they will not return.
PANTEL: You say we should have a positive attitude towards people showing their own prosperity openly, but there must be something else as well. We can see it in the USA, where wealth is quite closely tied to the duty to be charitable, the willingness to give something away. Is that an ideal for you? Should we demand it more insistently from European businesses as well? Do we have an under- developed attitude to generosity?
SLOTERDIJK: Absolutely! But by its nature we can’t demand generosity; at most we should encourage it. I think this is the biggest socio-psychological mission of the next generation. We too have to work to prepare a climate of public generosity in which people aren’t always waiting for the state. We are waiting for a practice of generosity by quite normal heroes, who are convinced they have something to spare and think it is normal to give more than the tax office takes from them. They would be people whose self-esteem
150 Comparatists of Happiness
demands they give away a great deal – beyond the highest taxation rate. In addition, it is high time to ensure, by further developing the law on foundations and donations, that an increasingly bigger share of redistribution funds becomes intelligent money. Taxes, in fact, are stupid, blind, anonymous money, no man’s money. Gigantic sums flow into the coffers of some minister or administrator or other, and are poured out over rightful and wrongful recipients in more or less transparent but indiscriminate ways. Foundation money, on the other hand, would have the power to transform these sums into intelligent money because they would be paid as precise allocations to a specific address. Nebulous aid would become clever investment. Intelligent use of money – that’s the categorical imperative of redis- tribution, and it is chronically contravened in the existing system. We must develop a mood of public generosity so that it’s not just the wealthy who reach the position of being compelled to say, ‘We already gave! We’re not giving anything! ’ Everybody should be able to say, ‘We already gave but we can still give more. ’ That would be the key to a kind of redistribution converted from duty and compul- sion to voluntariness and generosity. Of course, this is only possible if there is a kind of euphoria of affluence, and it is impossible for that to develop in the general climate of fictitious stories about scarcity. That is the subject of the third chapter of Spheres III, in which I talk about stimulation and pampering. Some stuffy reviewers have inter- preted it as a conservative rejection of the classical welfare state. In fact, it is a reflection on how we can outdo the welfare state through the community of the generous.
PANTEL: You argue that it is particularly important to protect fragile things. In connection with what we have discussed here, what would be worthy of protection?
SLOTERDIJK: This concerns two opposite extremes: the first, and most fragile, is the dyad, that is, the area of interpersonal rela- tions, paradigmatically embodied in the mother–child relationship. In our society it is generally well protected. It is extraordinarily well embedded in our legal system, and we could regard its guarantee of maternalization without borders as the last father function of the state. We shouldn’t forget that, in evolutionary terms, the father is the one who protects the mother–child sphere. This original pact between the male and the female world must be reproduced in the appropriate form, even in the modern world. The most fragile thing in every known society is the mother–child sphere. It is the utopian centre of the collective and at the same time it is its centre of heat, the anthropogenous radiation field per se. When that is violated, human lives go round; large numbers of mad and degenerate people start appearing and the ‘society’ collapses from within.
Comparatists of Happiness 151
The second most fragile thing is, of course, the great totality itself, which is constructed like foam. That is what I try to show in Spheres III. If we want an adequate description of the system of cohabita- tion, we shouldn’t continue talking about a ‘steel-hard shell’, as Max Weber did, but about fragile constructs. The images of hard- ness are outdated; we finally have to change metaphors. Medieval cities added an outer wall that was removed at the beginning of the modern era because it was dysfunctional. The big comfortable hothouse in which we people in the West live today no longer has city walls. It is incredibly open, with soft borders, which is why it constantly has to be prepared for harm without losing its essential serenity, which is its working atmosphere. Now, however, a factor that we hardly noticed before comes into play. The great vulner- ability of modern foam goes together with an astonishing elasticity, which ensures that destruction, losses, fallen buildings and collapsed passages are replaced within a very short time. The real lesson of September 11, 2001, is that shortly after the disaster we were told that something new would be built quickly on the same spot. That is the crucial information we receive from 9/11.
The hysterical military reaction that was called the ‘war on terror’ was politically opportunist and systemically confusing. The real story lies in the process as a whole: if a building like that collapses, we immediately build a better one. If Daniel Libeskind has his way, the new one will be even taller than its predecessor. In other words, we shouldn’t underestimate the elasticity of the system! Fragility, and the impossibility of perfect protection, are consistent features of modern comfort foams. But because ‘society’ is actually not monolithic, because social aggregates are formations constructed from the bottom upwards out of single cells and foam bubbles, they have enormous elasticity. The false semantics of combating terror suggest lofty images of the entire system collapsing. Nothing could be further from the truth. When two big foam bubbles burst, the whole system may continue vibrating for a while, but a rupture like that has astonishingly little effect on the remaining cells. Elasticity is the primary feature of the foamy system. If we want to talk about the hothouse system of affluence, we must talk about two things: first, fragility, and, second, elasticity. It remains to investigate whether catastrophism and the tendency to inflate the new terrorism with fantastic over-interpretations merely represent the flip side of the common tendency towards fictional narratives about shortages.
18
IMAGE AND PERSPECTIVE An Experiment in Atmospheric Seeing
Interview with Tim Otto Roth*5
ROTH: Mr Sloterdijk, I would like to talk to you about your experience in dealing with images. I would also like to stray a little to look at the subject of imachination – a neologism I use to describe the alliance between imago and machina. Let’s speculate about possible spherological implications of the interplay of human imagination and the machine. What role do images play in your professional environment?
SLOTERDIJK: We can divide philosophers into the kind that are involved in expelling images from thought, and those who believe that thought as such is dependent on images, metaphors and figures. Obviously, I see myself as part of the latter group, although so far it has only occupied a minority position and has been partly ignored in the academic establishment. It is easy to forget that the foundation of the general concept of the image, whether as icon or as eidos, belongs to the field of early philosophy. Philosophers can claim to have been the original image theoreticians in the sense of having discovered the images as images in the first place, and taking them seriously. To understand this, we have to remember a rare fact: before philosophy emerged, the Greeks, and everybody else, had a way of seeing that was dominated by the absolutism of the natural perspective. To put it very broadly, the eye looks outwards into the situation and finds a holistically composed continuum of
* This conversation between Peter Sloterdijk and Tim Otto Roth appeared under the title ‘Bild und Anblick: Versuch über atmosphärisches Sehen’ (15 February 2005). Available at: <http://www. imachination. net/next100/reac tive/sloterdijk/index. htm>.
Tim Otto Roth lives and works in Oppenau and Cologne.
Image and Perspective 153
visual presences. We don’t perceive the sums of these presences as images that can be isolated, but as aspects of the ‘condition’ or the ‘surroundings’ as a whole, of what we traditionally call ‘nature’ or, more recently, ‘environment’.
Philosophy is now coming to grips with analysis of this total environment, always in relation to the first sciences, geometry, arith- metic and semantics. Philosophers can really claim to have been the first to develop something like a tracker that can project sections into the holistically structured continuum of visible conditions. If you like, philosophers have invented eidetic cutting machines with which we can cut shapes out of the rolled-out dough of the present and give definitive explanations: this is the shape of a horse; this is the shape of a person; this is the shape of a star; this is the shape of a righteous man. The original process of seeing images is brought round to itself in philosophy. ‘Image’ in this context doesn’t yet mean a segment of the world in a frame, but the outline of a thing that, by virtue of its contours, gives itself its own frame in a way. It is not just by chance that the ‘ideas’ Plato discovered are closely related on a linguistic level to the Greek word for the concrete, that is, the outlines of beings, alias eidoi, defined in terms of species. This is why we talk about ‘ideas’, or eidetic constants. The word eidos means the stabilized expectation of seeing in relation to a thing. The eidetic original image and contour image corresponds to the cut-out shape with which we cut recognizable forms out of reality. In other words, in the history of things that are visible generally, we can iden- tify Plato as the founding father of the image principle.
Behind Plato’s discovery, incidentally, is an experience that put the Greeks ahead of other peoples of their time – the experience of the written alphabet, a graphic image that conveys information about a phonetic reality. A person who can read writing trains the ability to select similarities from the mass of dissimilarities. If we write down the name of a thing, obviously the name doesn’t resem- ble the thing at all. But the name of the thing raises the idea of the thing that resembles the thing. Writing turns out to be a tool for vis- ualizing ideas by phonetic representation. In this sense, philosophy made the practice of writing possible in the first place. That led to the most momentous innovation of European intellectual history: Greek cursive writing that included the vowels allowed people to understand texts almost without reference to their context.
This, in turn, created a revolutionary figure – a reader who could read a book on his own. He was followed by the researcher, the historian and the autodidact. A mental process of image-making evolved through the culture of reading, and connected up over the cen- turies with visual and real image-making – particularly in artistic
154 Image and Perspective
professions. In this respect, philosophers, writers and illustrators belong together.
ROTH: In your Spheres trilogy you repeatedly refer to an image that was already shaped in antiquity: the sphere. In all three volumes of the work, Bubbles, Globes and Foam, you describe people as atmospherically sensitive political animals whose being- in-the-world hinges on the effort to live in something well-rounded. Your trilogy contains a remarkable number of illustrations for a philosophical project. Some of the illustrations you use are mimetic or illustrative. But most of the images don’t directly relate to pas- sages in the text. What function do pictures have in your trilogy?
SLOTERDIJK: The images in Spheres aren’t generally used as illustrations but as autonomous visual presences. Of course, there are instances when they only act as evidence or examples, especially in the second volume. When I talk of globes or macrospheres in that book it makes sense to show those kinds of objects. The resonance between image and text is very close and figurative there, and in such cases the tension between the two levels tends towards zero. Usually, however, the images I have chosen are not simple optical additions to the written text. Where they work as intended, their nature is largely evocative. What these images evoke is not duplica- tion of the text’s content, but idiosyncratic extensions of the text into the realm of imagination. The image sequences in my books express that my text as a whole is not written on the traditional white pages of the old European book – even if the Spheres book may look like any other book. That would be a wrong conclu- sion. I may seem to be a conventional author satisfied with the monologic, the one-track logic of philosophical discourse. Such monologues are written black on white. Yet the white of the book page in Spheres is actually a reference to the grey of the monitor. My claim is that the monitor is radically different from the good old white page of a book, particularly because of its enlarged functional capacity, which never remains at the point of what is put into it. Somehow the printed page always cites the inscriptions chiselled in stone on ancient monuments. Roman Antiqua, the prototype for European letterpress culture, is an elegantly constructed monu- mental script. This made it especially appropriate for conveying TRUTH. Everything changes the moment we switch into the realm of digital monitors. Today’s average computer offers such a com- prehensive font program that writers will not be able to use all of it in their whole life. This makes authors into graphic designers who have to create their own scriptural image. The script itself becomes a fashion medium and a matter for the user to define. We no longer use the old, elegant European monumental script to express truth.
Image and Perspective 155
The given forms of the new technology condemn us to a new form of freedom. Authorial freedom today means doing our own graphic design. The relationship between text and footnote, text and quo- tation, and text and image also changes in the same realm of the monitor. The way I insert images into the text expresses that I am already working in the electronic white cube that faces me as a flat screen. For this reason, the composition of Spheres can rather be compared to an installation. The images are placed in the book like exhibits in an installation. Because they are usually rather crazy in relation to the text, they induce a slightly trance-like effect. They address the reader’s brain on a different wavelength than the text.
ROTH: In relation to the monitor, on the visual level the second and third images in your first volume, Bubbles, struck me immedi- ately. In terms of media, those photographs of the Sun’s surface and of a galaxy from the SOHO and Hubble satellites create a contrast to the other illustrations. Do you see a difference between these digital photographs and other, more classical pictorial examples such as drawings, paintings, photographs or pictures of archaeo- logical objects?
SLOTERDIJK: A very great difference, actually, although the eye can’t recognize it at first. But the hermeneutic apparatus attached to the eye registers the difference easily. I wanted to suggest just now that the images as images only constitute a subset in the history and amount of what is visible. Taken by itself, the visible – the realm of views – is an immense reservoir structured as a surprise space for acts of seeing. Whatever else I do as a visual being, I navigate in this space. Let’s assume I am a prehistoric man looking at the horizon: the leopard wasn’t there a minute ago, and now it’s standing in front of me. Its presence changes the meaning of my situation. By nature I am incapable of ignoring the leopard’s presence. To me, its presence means the coming-to-visibility of a formerly invisible being. The point is that in this case the new visibility is something that appears of its own accord and forces me to react. The sight of the leopard that is present signifies danger. By contrast, if I only see its image it would be an all-clear signal – it would even suggest to me I were capable of manipulating the leopard. The modern age’s relations of seeing are structured totally differently from a world in which leopards appear at the camp. In the first place they depend on a major event called ‘research’. It was, above all, Heidegger in his later work who made it clear what that meant. Research is a measure for organized clearing away of hidden things, which is the same as saying that things that were not yet within the range of visibility are brought into visibility, indeed, more or less violently. Artists and natural scientists are allies in the major offensive against
156 Image and Perspective
concealment. We could say we live in a kind of mine where the extraction of new visibilities is done. In recent decades the ordinary collieries in Germany were closed due to unprofitability but the mines that exploit the lethe, the ‘shelter of being’,1 concealment, are working to full capacity more than ever. Their production exceeds anything known beforehand. Think of the new pictures of the earth from space taken with cameras on board satellites: they offer one of the most popular and most spectacular contributions to the attack of research on the realm of hidden things.
Paradoxically, before the modern age, the earth as a whole was the epitome of a shrouded object – it was the underlying factor no natural view could comprehend. Today it seems have the least secrets of anything. If I understand correctly what you mean by the hybrid word ‘imachination’, the term says that mechanical optics revolutionizes our relationships of seeing, and indicates how it does this. As soon as we discarded the term ‘revolution’, because it is the wrong description for a process that should have been understood much more technically and precisely, we were confronted with an alternative expression for the basic events of our epoch, namely, unfolding. Taking this metaphor literally is enough to get to the heart of the matter. Something that was concealed up until now, that was self-enclosed, enfolded and not illuminated, is dismantled and manipulated to form an enlarged surface – the folded object is unfolded, bringing the former interior to the surface until the light falls on it. This formal representation of the general procedure of rendering visible touches on the modus operandi of enlighten- ment in general. Enlighteners negate the conventional boundaries between light surfaces and dark interiors and bring formerly hidden things to light. That’s why I say we are not living so much in a revolution as in a process of folding outward, an ‘outfolding’. I even made the suggestion in my Spheres book to drop the term ‘revolution’ and replace it with ‘explication’. Making a revolution is more an episodic political gesture that is important in specific situa- tions, for example, when it is necessary to clear repressive secretive persons out of the way – monarchs and other manipulators of the Arcanum. They are regarded, with some justification, as figures that block the way to the basic work of the modern age, which consists, as we have said, in continuing to explain things further.
1 A reference to Heidegger: ‘Der Tod birgt als der Schrein des Nichts das Gebirg des Seins’ [‘As the shrine of the Nothing death is the shelter of Being’], in Martin Heidegger, Bremer und Freiburger Vorträge, ed. Petra Jaeger (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann), 2005, p. 18.
Image and Perspective 157
ROTH: I have a suspicion in relation to this outfolding. You describe the machinists’ statement about the human body as encap- sulated in La Mettrie’s dictum, ‘Voilà une machine bien éclairée’,2 in two ways, the first time as a blow for liberation and the second time as a loss of spheres. Meanwhile, haven’t we had to realize that the body is still a very mysterious machine, not least because of the com- plexity that genomics has revealed on the very lowest cellular level?
SLOTERDIJK: That is the irony of research: by discovering complexity it generates another mystery. Maybe there is a law that says the mass of enigmas stays constant.
ROTH: Wouldn’t you say this enigmatic characteristic gives the human self-image a kind of spherical quality?
SLOTERDIJK: We could look at it like that. As we have noted, the euphoric movement of revelation ranging from the anatomists of the sixteenth century to the physicists and mechanics of the nine- teenth and twentieth centuries followed the goal of making visible everything that was previously unseen – up to the sonic vibrations that were visually depicted in the nineteenth century by means of cumbersome phonographs on carbon paper made with the aid of a swan’s quill. Then, on the threshold of the twentieth century, came X-rays, a fantastic tool for satisfying the desire for transparency. Recently the trails of atoms were visualized in the cloud chamber – and this kind of research is still continuing. All these contributions to making visible things that were formerly invisible begin, in sub- stance, with the early anatomists’ intervention into the interior of the human body, and with the European captains and geographers sailing out into the oceans. We have to understand that the internal and external cartography express the same cognitive attitude. They can both be used to extend the field of view and operations.
Anatomical and geographical maps also have an important common characteristic: they make the attractive qualities of the body, its aura, disappear – not the cultural and metaphorical qualities that Walter Benjamin spoke of, but the energetic and real aura, the delicate casing in which bodies swim. Remember that ‘atmosphere’ in Greek simply means ‘vapour ball’, and all living bodies live in specific vapour balls that can’t be easily represented. To emphasize it, Dasein means having an atmosphere. Our whole image policy until now has been based on stripping the body of
2 Julien Offray de la Mettrie (1709–51) was a French philosopher and physician best known for his work L’homme machine (The Machine Man), 1747. Sloterdijk is referring to his famous dictum, ‘Here is a well- enlightened machine! ’
158 Image and Perspective
its atmosphere. Removing the atmosphere makes it possible in the first place to unfold the body and expose levels of visibility that never existed in that form, and could never exist. The cost of pushing through the surface is that we have to imagine the delicate shell is gone. We can see this particularly clearly from conventional maps. For centuries, they have produced a picture of the world without a climate because they could always depict only a terrain without any atmosphere. The geographer’s eye looks down on the site from above, as if there were no air and no clouds overhead. True, we can use graphical symbols to denote special fauna, flora and ground formations, and political colours to signify that Polish is spoken in the green and Czech in the yellow country, but that doesn’t change anything about the primary finding: the geographi- cal atmosphere is always deprived of atmosphere. The atmosphere was always the big loser in all traditional pictorial processes, start- ing with the maps colonialists made in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and ending with the present-day mag- netic resonance system. What these processes visibly present to us is a body segment without the auratic shell. Meanwhile, everything that can’t be treated with this type of technique gets lost. Still, we shouldn’t claim that auratic or atmospheric quantities had no advocates in theory at all. I would like to remind you that in his construction of the cosmos, Plato took care – you can read about this in Timaios – to give the world body a soul, the world soul, in fact, that not only pervades it from all sides but also surrounds it like a shell. We could see this as an admission of the atmospheric imperative, as if Plato had wanted to express that even the largest body, the cosmos, cannot do without its shell. The situational rela- tionships between body and soul have to be precisely established. The body should be in the soul, not the soul in the body – and the Platonic world body fulfils this condition. If it were not the case, we would land up directly in a metaphysics of death, as the soul would then regard itself as the body’s prisoner and would have to imagine post-mortal liberation. This position is unfortunately fairly widespread in the history of ideas – as a result of false read- ings of Platonic motifs. But in Plato’s work itself the world soul pervades the whole cosmos in such a way that it also shines over and beyond the edge, like an aura or a corona. The body swims in its atmospheric surplus. We should take note of that, because we are now going to discuss the drama in progress in today’s pictorial worlds. There are many indications that the reduction in the atmospheric sphere is being increasingly reversed. Due to a wide variety of motives, the shells that were formerly made to vanish are reappearing from extremely diverse technological and
Image and Perspective 159
psychological sources. What was once an expendable surplus in traditional cartography is resurfacing as an issue of personal rights and becoming respected as an entity to be explicitly represented. I think this is a very important, joyful moment in the history of visibility: what was previously invisible, the atmospheric sphere, has come so far today that we make it the subject of very explicit visualization and theatrical presentation.
It is meteorology, a field whose significance is not easy to imagine, that furnishes the paradigm for this. Around 200 years ago, in Goethe’s time, people first began the great discussion about air, the discussion that has kept humankind in suspense ever since. Goethe himself, incidentally, was very interested in the morphology of clouds. For some decades now, thanks to satellite optics, we have had a completely new form of illustrated weather news on televi- sion. Indeed, this media genre merits a discussion of its own at some point. The daily report on the climatic situation represents one of the most extensive forms of theatrical presentation of the realm of the invisible ever seen in human history. It is significant that weather forecasts have the best audience figures almost everywhere that television is watched. Despite their guaranteed banality, they are the only successful programmes right across the board. There are obvious conclusions to be drawn from this. Contemporary culture has developed to the extent that people recognize current climatic conditions as a political issue. Anybody talking about the weather is talking about the general issues of the day. Everybody knows, nostra res agitur. If there is a report on the Chancellor’s speech, or a train crash, the conversation at the table carries on as normal. When the weather report begins, silence reigns and people watch and listen – here is the real issue. Looking up at the sky ourselves is not enough any more. We want official confirmation before we believe what we see with our own eyes. We want to see from above how the cloud formation is bearing down on us. The new development is that deep down we have become strategists for judging the macro weather situation. A demand for a new outlook has grown up. I consider it momentous, and interpret it as a symptom of an all-embracing twilight of the atmospheres. It all points to the fact that the age of reductionism is dying out. Iconic primitivism is putting an end to itself. By now, images are omnipresent but their rebellious presence doesn’t automatically mean dictatorship. Images today are much less dominant than they used to be, for two main reasons: first, there is a broad division of powers in the image space that prevents indi- vidual icons from taking power; and, second, the law of complexity increasingly applies to images as well as other things. Conventional over-simplifications have reached a dead end.
160 Image and Perspective
ROTH: However, I see the twilight of the spheres more in the area of image production. I think imachination is covertly about a change in pictorial policy. Given the complex image production process, nobody today can still claim that they alone have an overview of this technical production process and can see the consequences in this highly specialized process. This is the question: isn’t it much more a matter of image production having become a communica- tive act, with a chain of image-processing from the mathematician up to post-production workers working together on images – in other words, communication as the technical Communion song in the machine?
SLOTERDIJK: That is certainly the case. But I think we should no longer ask the question about the collective fabrication of images as we did in 1960 or 1970, when suspicion as a form of thought had become all the rage once again. I admit I am increasingly irritated by the neo-Marxist attitude of methodical paranoia that was dominant back then, and which slides so easily into existential paranoia. The conventional logic of distrust, that heavy legacy of the failed French Revolution, is out of date today, particularly because the special- ized process you just highlighted has its own laws that even an evil lord couldn’t control. The Romans had a proverb: Caesar non super grammaticos – the emperor may command everything, but not the rules of grammar. This is less clear in relation to the rules of produc- tion of images, but the same tendency applies. Of course, in terms of media policy, there are notable, sometimes dangerous clusters of power. Still, we can’t ignore the fact that even a media mogul can’t change the syntax and grammar of imagery at will. The visual world as a whole is still a polycentric field that can’t be controlled from a single centre. The figure of the malignant lord is more of an illusion than a verifiable experience.
ROTH: My question was actually in a different direction. Vilém Flusser3 claimed that it is not the politicians who govern today, but the computer scientists who write the programs. I’m not happy with this assertion because it presupposes that the people who program have an overview of the whole process. I tend to think that the self-image of the image producer has changed. When Peter Galison4 quotes a physicist who specializes in elementary particles as saying, ‘The experimenter is not a single person, but a composite,’
3 Vilém Flusser (1920–91) was a Czech-born philosopher, writer and jour- nalist who later specialized in media studies.
4 Peter Galison is a historian of the history of science and a professor at Harvard University.
Image and Perspective 161
I think this corresponds in a sense to your concept of atmospheric realities.
SLOTERDIJK: That may well be. But the fact that today’s image-makers are teams mastering sophisticated techniques is one reason that an exaggerated theory of suspicion can’t take us any further. Paranoia sees only a small segment of the world. Of course we know that atmospheres can be poisoned, and we also know that the lie holds sway sometimes. Nonetheless, teamwork, high-tech and complex actor networks are increasingly limiting the parameters of fraud and the corresponding suspicion. Rather, we are doomed more and more to trust under complex conditions, which means that whatever we do ourselves must presuppose that other parts of the system are functioning. In a universe of justified mistrust, we would be compelled to react to Galison’s thesis with panic. It would mean everyone is busy faking and lying. But I think mistrust can only be partially justified, and in most things it is better to work with trust. When I hear the experimenters themselves are now only elements in a complex situation that is watching itself, I feel I can relax. It means that things are operating generally in the right way, within the scope of what is normal and possible. If that weren’t the case we would be in a state of constant fear. We would have to be suspicious about everything, and rattle the bars of the matrix, shouting ‘I want to get out! ’, like the imprisoned souls in the world dungeon in the Gnostic legend. In modern terms, it would mean Luddism and the curse on the sciences. But as soon as the reality of the atmospheric factor becomes explicit we have an instrument for moderating the transi- tion from suspicion to trust. This can involve a Leninist remnant: ‘Trust is good; control is better’ – and why not? Trust is the result of secure expectations, and control is one securing mode among others. But it doesn’t have the last word. Lenin is only one voice in the con- flict between the basic moods of suspicion and trust.
ROTH: Aren’t you talking about a blind Gehlen-type trust that takes the form of simply abandoning trust? I meant a completely different kind of consciousness that doesn’t actually fulfil this func- tion of relief in Gehlen’s sense. 5
SLOTERDIJK: We shouldn’t underestimate Gehlen’s great eco- nomic discovery, which he called ‘relief’. Without it we wouldn’t be able to cope with the simplest situation. If you don’t want to go mad from obsessive total control you always have to start from an atmosphere of original trust. Nobody can spend a long time asking
5 Arnold Gehlen (1904–76) was a German philosopher, sociologist and anthropologist and a leading proponent of philosophical anthropology.
162 Image and Perspective
whether the air in a room is breathable or not. We simply have to start from the assumption that it is breathable and see how far we get. This basic diagnosis, that we are condemned to trust, can be confirmed in many different ways. We can see a persistent connec- tion with the emergence of the atmospheric sphere. Oddly enough, we only become aware of the atmosphere through its destruction. It is the environment of original trust, but we usually only realize that when it is destroyed by deliberate attacks. In that case, ideas about protecting the atmosphere have to become concrete. When we have grasped how vulnerable the subtle, atmospheric premises of life are, we will be in a position to achieve the right configuration of trust and caution. Remembrance of the worst things benefits the most fragile.